Datasets:

Siki-77

/

Sub_test_diff_length

like 0

I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it?

This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.<br /><br />But it does not work at all.<br /><br />To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".<br /><br />Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.<br /><br />And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.<br /><br />"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.

Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...<br /><br />No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.<br /><br />I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.<br /><br />Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.<br /><br />If you then compare it with "Italiensk for begyndere" (Italian for beginners) or "Mifunes sidste sang" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.<br /><br />When the film had ended, I thought to myself: "Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ..." The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.

First off, I'm in the U.S.<br /><br />When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.<br /><br />Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.<br /><br />I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.<br /><br />Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.<br /><br />--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )

I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.<br /><br />Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.<br /><br />Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.<br /><br />I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.<br /><br />Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men. <br /><br />I have.

From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall.

From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. <br /><br />(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) <br /><br />The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. <br /><br />I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.<br /><br />The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.<br /><br />The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.

Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.<br /><br />Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp

See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.<br /><br />Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.<br /><br />This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.<br /><br />The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, "The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.<br /><br />Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed. <br /><br />-BJamin

This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.

Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - "The Powerpuff Girls save the day!" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3/10

The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...<br /><br />While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.<br /><br />The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.<br /><br />I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.<br /><br />Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.

I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.<br /><br />First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.<br /><br />This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.<br /><br />Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.<br /><br />See something else.

I knew that I was not about to see a quality film when this title was included in a 'B-grade video night' at a friends place. Despite the warnings, I was still surprised at just how bad this film was. It was fortunate that there were a lot of us there to share the pain with each other... The film attempts to tell the story of a dark future, one in which Hawk (a Mad Max type of character) heads off to rescue a damsel in distress. In reality, the plot is a thinly disguised excuse for the producers to promote their own philosophies on life (watch the end credits and the 'these people are not real' disclaimer at the end for a real laugh). The movie is frequently lacking direction, and fails to develop its characters to any degree whatsoever. What's even worse though is the editing of this film. The film repeats scenes (often 10 to 20 seconds long) up to 4 or 5 times in a row. I think that this was an attempt to emulate things like Jean Claude Van-Damme fight sequences, but if it is it fails utterly. The film would probably be about 1/3 of its length if we weren't forced to watch the main character move his head in front of the setting sun half a dozen times (yes, that's all that happens in that repeated scene). I give this movie my 'worst film I've ever seen' award. I doubt that it will be topped any time soon.

A post-apocalyptic warrior goes off to save some kind of Nun and on the way meets some cyber-punks on skates who want to kick his ass. This is one of the hardest to watch films ever, There are scenes with silence that seems to last hours before somebody comes out with the next badly written, badly acted line. There are action sequences that keep repeating - and we're not talking the quickfire 1-2-3 action repeat on a particularly good kick that was made popular by eastern directors, we're talking many, many repeats of long, bad fight sequences. This is incredibly confusing at first but then quickly becomes annoying as you're watching a 30 second sequence for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. Any kind of plot or vision is lost within the confusing continuity, the only thing thats keeps this film in the videoplayer (apart from the bet from a friend that i couldn't watch it all the way through without begging for it to be turned off and disposed off safely so it may harm no-one else) is the fact that although painful, this film is unintentionally hilarious, i'm not at all a fan of those "so bad that it's funny" type of films but at parts i was in tears. Other points to note are the quality of the sound and picture but this is forgiveable as it's obvious money was a major problem in the making of this film. Final verdict - King of the "so bad they're funny" genre, anybody having that kind of genre video night should get themselves a copy. Also lets not forget that it is actually the worst film i've ever seen.

My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone!

Very strange. But meant to be. This director is his own man. Even through there are strains if Polanski, Bergman, and Kafka at least in the episode no 6, the peeping tom one. What made it all so strange, and reminiscent of the above three artists, was that it went all over the place, you never knew where it was headed, and could have ended anyplace, and finally when it did end, could have kept going. The ending is hardly a finality, nobody could tell you what these two characters would be doing in even the next frame. One other thing should be said about the director: No wonder Kubrick found him fascinating. There is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this episode somehow, in the direct approach to character, the realistic fantasy elements of both. A Kubrick placement of the camera without any of the stark effects, much more washed out, and hurried, not as fussed over. That said, back to the beginning, still this guy has his own things to say and says them well. Yet, for some reason, there is not a single scene I ever want to see again. But definitely did not feel ripped off in the least watching it one time around. But I did keep getting the feeling of three or four other directors ghosts moving through the parade, blurring everything. The caveat being that it was only episode six: the other nine might give me entirely different takes. But since this episode revolved around peeping, looking, the absolute domain of film, I will say this, he took none of the usual routes, definitely went his own way while carrying the baggage of a lot of good directors behind him.

With Pep Squad receiving an average of 4.7 on IMDb.com, no wonder Steve Balderson slanders this website so. But the fact is that Pep Squad is a poorly crafted "black" "comedy" (both words in quotation marks for a reason). It's a movie full of over-acting (Cherry, Beth's Mother), coupled with a couple of lethargic performances (Beth and Julie's boyfriend). A movie where you can follow cars from twenty feet away in a gaudy red Jeep and never be noticed. A movie chock full of not-so-appetizing cleavage and nudity shots that make you wonder, "Does the director think this is funny? Or clever?" Most of all, the characters are so paper-thin and poorly developed that the film becomes quite unpredictable, but probably not on purpose. Pep Squad can't decide whether to be a comedy, or a drama, or a satire (patriotic music, I get it...). The movie fails at being serious, because the idea of killing for any school position (this being Prom Queen) crosses the line into insanity (not to mention shots of flag burning and drive-by shootings, a poor attempt at being controversial and edgy), and fails at being a comedy, for all the forced and awkwardly placed jokes (big butt mama, "funky" black principal, and excessive cussing delivered poorly by the principal cast). Watching the documentary "Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere" only made this film more cringe-worthy, with praise lauded towards it by... the director and the director's father... hmmmmmm. Not a black comedy, or anything for that matter. I guess Kansas will have to wait.

Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.<br /><br />I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after. <br /><br />Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching. <br /><br />If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.<br /><br />In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. "Westler" from the early '80s, or "My Beautiful Laundrette," from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes. <br /><br />Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.

Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.<br /><br />The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.<br /><br />The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.<br /><br />The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).<br /><br />The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.<br /><br />The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.

Clearly, Andreas Bethmann would like to wear Jess Franco's crown whilst coveting (at least cinematically) the old workhorse's wife, Lina Romay. Romay plays a corrupt, salacious, masturbating prison warden in this modern, ambitious W.I.P. film. With some exceptions, many of Franco's films are ineptly produced and directed in a slipshod, hurried manner. Shots don't always cut together and the sound mixes can be horrific. While watching "Angel of Death 2" (aka "Prison Island Massacre") I asked myself if Bethmann is deliberately trying to replicate Franco's patent shoddiness, or is he just naturally shoddy like his mentor? Is this movie deliberately bad, which would be self-defeating, or is it simply bad by neglect? After a hitchhiker is forced to give a gunpoint blowjob, her rapist fills her mouth, then fills her vagina with some drugs. Minutes later, she is hauled into a clifftop prison for reasons not explained and subjected to the leers and rough handling of staff and other inmates. As this is a WIP film, there are lesbian scenes galore and plenty of violent behavior. The gore is bloody and sadistic, too, with delights such as teeth pulling and scalping (courtesy of Olaf Ittenbach). The acting is pretty awful and the fight scenes are lame, but there is a love of sleaze in every frame and an understanding of what trash fans enjoy. Unfortunately, the flat script makes for a flat movie. So, despite numerous atrocities, hardcore sex, and a guest appearance from Jess Franco, the experience is an empty one. But isn't that what most Jess Franco movies are?

I'd picked this one up time and time again in the rental store, wondering if I should give it a shot. Today I broke down and gave it a whirl, and I probably shouldn't have.<br /><br />While the writer/director did give the film a respectable effort, it fell far short of engaging. The characters, while you wanted to feel for them, just didn't have enough development or depth for you to get truly involved with them. Sara's sexual outbursts got tiring-- fast. I don't mind sex in films, and I don't mind bitchy characters, but being a "bad" girl doesn't mean you're prone to excitedly ask people at random if they'd like sexual favors. By the time what happened to the characters was revealed, I was bored, and ready to fast-forward to the climax, the end, anything exciting... and nothing delivered. The things the folks in the story eventually inform you of seems forced and unrealistic, and just wasn't played quite right. If they'd have thrown a bit more anguish in there, I might have been interested. This should have been a more of a suspense/drama film, and should have stuck to the title "Jon Good's Wife" rather than the whole "red right hand" and horror film-like cover. Hell... this should have had suspense, period.<br /><br />Either way... watch this on a rainy day or a late night when there's nothing on the television. Though this isn't as great as I'd hoped, I would go for this over some infomercials.

When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.<br /><br />Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.

before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.<br /><br />the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.<br /><br />the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.<br /><br />the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).<br /><br />live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.<br /><br />3/10

It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.

A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.

This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.<br /><br />Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.<br /><br />So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.

This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...<br /><br />First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.<br /><br />I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!

There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. <br /><br />I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).<br /><br />Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.<br /><br />Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.<br /><br />But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line). <br /><br />Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.<br /><br />Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?<br /><br />One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.<br /><br />Thanks, ladies.

This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....<br /><br />Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.<br /><br />When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.<br /><br />Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.<br /><br />I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!

The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.<br /><br />Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore.

Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.<br /><br />Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.<br /><br />So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest: <br /><br />1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.<br /><br />2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.<br /><br />3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.<br /><br />4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.<br /><br />5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.<br /><br />6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.<br /><br />7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.<br /><br />8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.<br /><br />As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.<br /><br />Not recommended. Not recommended at all!

Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...

John Sayles, what have you done?<br /><br />"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.<br /><br />I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.<br /><br />The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.<br /><br />Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.

SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?"

I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie "Respiro" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...

Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. <br /><br />Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). <br /><br />On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.<br /><br />Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.<br /><br />2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.<br /><br />3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. <br /><br />4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.<br /><br />5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.<br /><br />6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.<br /><br />Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.

This movie was so bad and so cheap and so corny, I found this movie to be one of the most boring slow paced early 80's movies that I have ever seen. I like most 80's cheap horror movies but I would never rent this one again. It just did not make any sense. A family that lives in the woods invites their son, his wife and their daughter to spend time with them for the holidays and during the movie for some reason the mother and daughter- in- law do not get along well. We never figure out why until almost till the end of the movie but until then, all we see is the fact that the mother has some form of ESP and the daughter- in- law is having nightmares and flashbacks of a catastrophe of what will happen to unfortunate victims to this "thing" that we have no clue as to what "it" looks like, all we see is a bright light signaling his approach and all we hear is a cheap interpretation of Darth Vadar voices and a soundtrack stolen from various horror movies. Then when we finally find out what and who it is all I did was laugh. This "killer" turns out to be some kind of alien Japanese warrior from WW2 who has apparently come back to life to claim the mother and her family. And all the mother does is stand there in front of the living room shaking with her hands on fire or something like she's going into some kind of convulsion. This movie is pathetic! Avoid it, it's not even worth renting.

This was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.

"House of the Damned" (also known as "Spectre") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.<br /><br />The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film "Poltergeist" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.<br /><br />Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. "House of the Damned" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4/10.

I like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.<br /><br />Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.<br /><br />Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.<br /><br />3/10

This movie is a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.<br /><br />He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.<br /><br />Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.

How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.<br /><br />Then, cliché, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing "the supposed good life" in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...<br /><br />I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough...

Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. "Tunnel Vision" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like "Fatal Attraction", "Disclosure" and "Basic Instinct". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop/bad-cop cliché is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc… Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total waste of time…

This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!

When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.<br /><br />Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!<br /><br />The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.<br /><br />As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.

Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.<br /><br />I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.<br /><br />I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever "plot" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the "music" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.<br /><br />If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.<br /><br />After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.<br /><br />The guidelines ask that you "focus on the content and context". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.

This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.<br /><br />Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.<br /><br />Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.<br /><br />This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."<br /><br />As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.

In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise? <br /><br />'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.<br /><br />Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny.

I truly despair for womankind when they discuss this joke of a programme as if it's intellectually engaging and promotes female liberation and independence. This show is the biggest insult to women next to all those libidinous hip-hop videos. If talking like a bunch of reckless teenage boys over $100 lunches in swanky restaurants, indiscriminately shopping for unnecessary fashion and jumping into bed with the nearest male in site is considered empowering, the fate of western women may be doomed as we speak.<br /><br />Aside from the damage it does to the female gender, Sex and the City is NOT ENTERTAINING. Not once has it been funny, captivating, exciting or original. The episodes play out monotonously. Each character are factory produced mannequins who behave in the same manner every episode. Not once have any of these shallow, unattractive women evolved. Perhaps the worst is lead character Carrie Bradshaw. Aside from looking hideous, her penchant for over analysis of relationships is cringe worthy. On top of all this, the show portrays men as a bunch of empty headed slobs who are unable to commit to healthy relationships. Even when there is a decent man, he is somehow painted as a villain. The utter lack of empathy for men is clearly the work of some "progressive" pseudo feminist.<br /><br />Saddest part of the whole show is that these women live unfortunate miserable lives. Any intelligent woman would never envy them. It is a banal show with even more banal characters. The NYC tourist board must hate the way this garbage is showing up their otherwise fine city! Thankfully this train wreck is over! Desperate Housewives is seen as the fitting replacement for SATC. While DH can be quite far-fetched, at least it explores women in more multi-faceted ways. Plus it treats men more respectfully and it's actually entertaining!

All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!<br /><br />First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).<br /><br />Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough. <br /><br />Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.<br /><br />Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.<br /><br />Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?<br /><br />This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.

I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.<br /><br />I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\<br /><br />I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince

1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.<br /><br />Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.<br /><br />The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary "Slowly I turned..." routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.<br /><br />For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.

This movie is a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.<br /><br />25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout. <br /><br />It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.<br /><br />Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.

Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity.

Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.<br /><br />I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.<br /><br />Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.<br /><br />The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.<br /><br />The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.<br /><br />The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.<br /><br />It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.<br /><br />Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.<br /><br />Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.

I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.<br /><br />Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.<br /><br />I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.<br /><br />Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.<br /><br />The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.<br /><br />Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.<br /><br />That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.

I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.<br /><br />This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.<br /><br />Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film

This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding. <br /><br />The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.<br /><br />I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?

Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).<br /><br />The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.<br /><br />This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.

As a bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.<br /><br />The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!<br /><br />The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The "sacred pen" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.<br /><br />I could go on, but when it got to "inner body bomb defusion" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.<br /><br />By the way, would a news reporter really say "Downtown Damascus"??

There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping "tough guy" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity "starred" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain "Concorde" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a "Porky's" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious "Airplane!" the following year brought the whole "Airport" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike. <br /><br />1/10

This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the "Final Solution" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.<br /><br />The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave "legal respectibility" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered "I'll remember you" and Firth replies "you should! I'm very well-known!!" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.

How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.<br /><br />The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".<br /><br />The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.<br /><br />All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.

If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.<br /><br />The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..<br /><br />Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.<br /><br />Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. "Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.<br /><br />Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.

Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.<br /><br />In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.<br /><br />Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.<br /><br />Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.<br /><br />Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.

I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill…) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!

If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.<br /><br />Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100. <br /><br />It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray. <br /><br />If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.

"Heaven Can Wait" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.<br /><br />The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.<br /><br />This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.

I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.<br /><br />The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.<br /><br />Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.<br /><br />Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...<br /><br />On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.

German emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes "blackface" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of "a different tribe." Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza!

The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.<br /><br />For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.<br /><br />Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.<br /><br />In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.

Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.<br /><br />I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too "complicated" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work. <br /><br />If you must try it on cable

Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all! <br /><br />Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!<br /><br />The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.<br /><br />There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do.

For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.<br /><br />Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.<br /><br />You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.<br /><br />Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.<br /><br />The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.<br /><br />Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!

CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of "Red River Valley". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: "Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please."

This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. <br /><br />There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. <br /><br />Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.

The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clichés it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen. <br /><br />I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...

1st watched 10/29/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-John Stephenson): Mildly entertaining story of a group of five kids who are forced to live with their eccentric uncle while their father and mother fight & work in World War I as England entered the war. They are told not to go in the greenhouse of the uncle's mansion, which of course they do over and over, and they discover a sand fairy who them daily wishes that only last until the sun goes down. This is the "IT" referred to in the title, created by the Jim Henson group and voiced by Eddie Izzard. The problem is their wishes usually bring about other problems that they are supposed to learn from. This part of the movie is not done very well because it's obvious the children, primarily the Freddie Highmore character, do not learn from them but instead keep going back to "it" to solve their next big problem. "IT" is not nearly as funny as it could have been with the comedian Eddie Izzard really not given much opportunity to improvise and Kenneth Branagh is wasted as the eccentric uncle, although he is the best character. The children are fine as far as their acting abilities but the story probably would have been much better going into the fantasy realm but they did have a human story to tell as well, which probably caused the confusion with the filmmakers. So, all in all, this was an OK film but could have been much better.

The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.<br /><br />Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.<br /><br />No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD.

It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.

Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 "Deliverance" turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.<br /><br />Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?<br /><br />The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).<br /><br />I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards.

This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything "virgin" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.<br /><br />It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a "forest king" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of "dream-like" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the "forest king" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).<br /><br />I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that "Simona" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.<br /><br />It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably "serious".

Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a "British neo-noir" crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.<br /><br />Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.<br /><br />Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.<br /><br />Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition! <br /><br />Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.<br /><br />Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.<br /><br />There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.

This vicious little film is horrendous. My low rating for it comes for two main reasons. The first is that it is an animal snuff film and I find that whole concept so vile it turns my stomach. Filmed over a hundred years ago, I can only hope that we've evolved into something a little more humane and compassionate. This film is complete and utter exploitation, made to cash in on the sensational aspects of the film and the subject. Historical interest aside, this is something to watch only if one finds themselves in the grip of morbid fascination.<br /><br />Reason number two? Look at the way that the camera is set up. It is placed in the best possible location to fully capture the full effect: long march forward of the elephant, perfect view of the electrocution platform and a cold and clinically dispassionate viewpoint of the elephant with smoke coming out of it before it finally collapses. Sickening.<br /><br />Thomas Edison did many great things for civilization and his talents and intelligence aren't in doubt. Nobody is perfect, but when you realize that this film provided A) an opportunity for him to trump early cinematic competitors with a sensationalist film of an elephant being electrocuted and B) he filmed the execution to demonstrate the greater effectiveness of DC as opposed to AC, you can't help but wonder if the scientist in him was a little TOO dispassionate and cold. Any number of Peter Cushing's mad scientists would be proud. The rest of us should be ashamed and revolted.

I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.<br /><br />*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!

There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.<br /><br />However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.<br /><br />After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.<br /><br />The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.<br /><br />"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.

I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.<br /><br />In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.<br /><br />With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.<br /><br />Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!

Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. <br /><br />India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. <br /><br />a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.<br /><br />A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). <br /><br />I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.

Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.<br /><br />Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says "Do Not Feed The Animals," and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).<br /><br />Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10

...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!<br /><br />If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to "kill" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early "SCOOBY-DOO" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name "Eugenie Wingate" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!<br /><br />Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!

It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute "Armed and Dangerous" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute "behind Precinct Walls"; "Plan of Attack"; "The Assault Team"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for "Unleashed", "White Noise", :Seed of Chucky" <br /><br />Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of "Cry Wolf"; a 10 minute first look at "Unleashed"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo

Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...<br /><br />Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with "Assault on Precinct 13."<br /><br />Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.<br /><br />"Assault on Precinct 13" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...<br /><br />There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1<br /><br />(Only because I have seen worse films.)

I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of "sticking it" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright. <br /><br />First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.<br /><br />I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade. <br /><br />Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this. <br /><br />But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.<br /><br />Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)

After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.

This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just "fun" after "fun" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.<br /><br />The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.<br /><br />The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.<br /><br />From movies like this did the term "Hollywood Trash" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.

I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.<br /><br />As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.<br /><br />Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.<br /><br />Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10

Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her "highly trained" male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.<br /><br />Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action.

This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible. <br /><br />Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.<br /><br />A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.<br /><br />As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.<br /><br />All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.<br /><br />This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.

For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.